Filed: Mar. 11, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 11, 2008 No. 07-50507 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAUL LORENZO LEZAMA-LANDEROS Defendant-Appellant Consolidated with No. 07-50515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAUL LORENZO LANDEROS Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 11, 2008 No. 07-50507 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAUL LORENZO LEZAMA-LANDEROS Defendant-Appellant Consolidated with No. 07-50515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAUL LORENZO LANDEROS Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-27..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 11, 2008
No. 07-50507
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAUL LORENZO LEZAMA-LANDEROS
Defendant-Appellant
Consolidated with
No. 07-50515
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAUL LORENZO LANDEROS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-2714-2
USDC No. 3:06-CR-2236-ALL
No. 07-50507 c/w
No. 07-50515
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raul Lorenzo Lezama-Landeros appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction of being found in the United States without
permission, following removal. He also appeals the sentence imposed following
the revocation of his supervised release for a 2006 misprison of a felony offense.
Lezama-Landeros contends that the 110-month sentence imposed by the
district court for his illegal reentry offense, which included an upward departure
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s., is unreasonable because it is greater than
necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He
argues that the district court, in imposing his sentence, overstated the
seriousness of his offense because it failed to consider the circumstances
surrounding his illegal reentry. He also argues that the district court relied on
unsubstantiated speculation that his telephone conversations with a jailed friend
signified his continued involvement in criminal activity. Lezama-Landeros’s
arguments do not demonstrate that the sentence was imposed as a result of
procedural error or is unreasonable. See Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586,
596 (2007); United States v. Zuniga-Peralta,
442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. ), cert.
denied,
126 S. Ct. 2954 (2006).
Lezama-Landeros contends that the sentence imposed by the district court
for the revocation of his supervised release is unreasonable to the extent it was
ordered to run partially consecutive to the sentence imposed for his illegal
reentry offense. He argues that the 110-month sentence imposed for his illegal
reentry was unreasonable and that the grounds underlying that sentence unduly
influenced the district court’s decision to impose a partially consecutive
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
No. 07-50507 c/w
No. 07-50515
revocation sentence. This court has not yet determined in the wake of United
States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), the proper standard of review to be applied
to sentences imposed upon the revocation of supervised release. However,
Lezama-Landeros has not shown that his revocation sentence was imposed as
a result of procedural error, is unreasonable, or is plainly unreasonable.
See
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596; United States v. Hinson,
429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.
2005); United States v. Gonzalez,
250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3